Businesses, governments, and financial institutions are increasingly adopting a policy of no net loss of biodiversity for development activities. The goal of no net loss is intended to help relieve tension between conservation and development by enabling economic gains to be achieved without concomitant biodiversity losses. biodiversity offsets represent a necessary component of a much broader mitigation strategy for achieving no net loss following prior application of avoidance, minimization, and remediation measures. However, doubts have been raised about the appropriate use of biodiversity offsets. We examined what no net loss means as a desirable conservation outcome and reviewed the conditions that determine whether, and under what circumstances, biodiversity offsets can help achieve such a goal. We propose a conceptual framework to substitute the often ad hoc approaches evident in many biodiversity offset initiatives. The relevance of biodiversity offsets to no net loss rests on 2 fundamental premises. First, offsets are rarely adequate for achieving no net loss of biodiversity alone. Second, some development effects may be too difficult or risky, or even impossible, to offset. To help to deliver no net loss through biodiversity offsets, biodiversity gains must be comparable to losses, be in addition to conservation gains that may have occurred in absence of the offset, and be lasting and protected from risk of failure. Adherence to these conditions requires consideration of the wider landscape context of development and offset activities, timing of offset delivery, measurement of biodiversity, accounting procedures and rule sets used to calculate biodiversity losses and gains and guide offset design, and approaches to managing risk. Adoption of this framework will strengthen the potential for offsets to provide an ecologically defensible mechanism that can help reconcile conservation and development. Balances de Biodiversidad y el Reto de No Obtener Pérdida Neta.

T he Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) sets the policy framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use through the commitments of 195 countries and the European Union. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 included Aichi Biodiversity Target 12, which set the goal for 2020 of preventing the extinction of known threatened species and improving and sustaining their conservation status. Despite government commitments and successful efforts for certain species 1 , the overall extinction risk continues to increase, and widespread implementation shortfalls will prevent Target 12 from being met 2 . A new global framework with revised goals and targets is currently being negotiated, which places the stabilization and restoration of species' populations as an outcome goal for 2030, as a stepping stone towards the CBD's 2050 Vision 3,4 .

Increased recognition of the business case for managing corporate impacts on the environment has helped drive increasingly detailed and quantified corporate

Biodiversity offsetting is increasingly being used to reconcile the objectives of conservation and development. It is generally acknowledged that there are limits to the kinds of impacts on biodiversity that can or should be offset, yet there is a paucity of policy guidance as to what defines these limits and the relative difficulty of achieving a successful offset as such limits are approached. In order to improve the consistency and defensibility of development decisions involving offsets, and to improve offset design, we outline a general process for evaluating the relative offsetability of different impacts on biodiversity. This process culminates in a framework that establishes the burden of proof necessary to confirm the appropriateness and achievability of offsets, given varying levels of: conservation concern for affected biodiversity; residual impact magnitude; opportunity for suitable offsets; and feasibility of offset implementation in practice. Rankings for biodiversity conservation concern are drawn from existing conservation planning tools and approaches, including the IUCN Red List, Key Biodiversity Areas, and international bank environmental safeguard policies. We hope that the proposed process will stimulate much-needed scientific and policy debate to improve the integrity and accountability of both regulated and voluntary biodiversity offsetting.

Wild parrots represent one of the greatest commercial interests in the legal trade in wild birds. Although it is difficult to quantify, there is a considerable illegal trade in wild parrots. Thirty-six per cent of the world's parrot species are listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature as threatened or near threatened, and 55% of these are threatened to some degree by trade. In this paper, we investigate the impact of protection on the number of nests that failed because of nestlings being taken by humans (hereafter nest take) and on nesting success in parrots. We collate data on parrot nest take from published and unpublished studies from Africa, Asia and Australasia, including countries and sites with and without national and local parrot protection measures in place. Nest take was insignificant in Australia, where all studies were from areas with both local and national protection. For less developed countries, levels of nest take were variable between studies, spanning the whole range from 0 to 100%. Protection significantly reduced nest take and correspondingly increased nesting success. Our results corroborate those for the Neotropics; thus, the advantages of protection appear to be independent of geographical location or political and economic conditions. We analysed data on legal trade in wild-caught parrots before and after implementation of the 1992 Wild Bird Conservation Act (which practically eliminated import of parrots to the USA) and found that there was no apparent shift in parrot imports to other global regions from the Neotropics. We suggest that conservation of parrots globally would benefit from similar legislation introduced in other regions, such as the EU (15), which is responsible for more than 60% of global imports of wild parrots.